Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules, 58958-58959 [2021-23131]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
58958
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Notices
Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he
balancing of competing social and
political interests affected by a proposed
antitrust consent decree must be left, in
the first instance, to the discretion of the
Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993
F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted).
‘‘The court should bear in mind the
flexibility of the public interest inquiry:
the court’s function is not to determine
whether the resulting array of rights and
liabilities is one that will best serve
society, but only to confirm that the
resulting settlement is within the
reaches of the public interest.’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation
marks omitted); see also United States v.
Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232
(TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C.
Apr. 14, 2020). More demanding
requirements would ‘‘have enormous
practical consequences for the
government’s ability to negotiate future
settlements,’’ contrary to congressional
intent. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1456. ‘‘The
Tunney Act was not intended to create
a disincentive to the use of the consent
decree.’’ Id.
The United States’ predictions about
the efficacy of the remedy are to be
afforded deference by the Court. See,
e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461
(recognizing courts should give ‘‘due
respect to the Justice Department’s . . .
view of the nature of its case’’); United
States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F.
Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In
evaluating objections to settlement
agreements under the Tunney Act, a
court must be mindful that [t]he
government need not prove that the
settlements will perfectly remedy the
alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only
provide a factual basis for concluding
that the settlements are reasonably
adequate remedies for the alleged
harms.’’ (internal citations omitted));
United States v. Republic Servs., Inc.,
723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010)
(noting ‘‘the deferential review to which
the government’s proposed remedy is
accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1,
6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must
accord due respect to the government’s
prediction as to the effect of proposed
remedies, its perception of the market
structure, and its view of the nature of
the case.’’). The ultimate question is
whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the
Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with
the allegations charged as to fall outside
of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W.
Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Moreover, the Court’s role under the
APPA is limited to reviewing the
remedy in relationship to the violations
that the United States has alleged in its
complaint, and does not authorize the
Court to ‘‘construct [its] own
hypothetical case and then evaluate the
decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38
F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court
must simply determine whether there is
a factual foundation for the
government’s decisions such that its
conclusions regarding the proposed
settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he
‘public interest’ is not to be measured by
comparing the violations alleged in the
complaint against those the court
believes could have, or even should
have, been alleged’’). Because the
‘‘court’s authority to review the decree
depends entirely on the government’s
exercising its prosecutorial discretion by
bringing a case in the first place,’’ it
follows that ‘‘the court is only
authorized to review the decree itself,’’
and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the
complaint’’ to inquire into other matters
that the United States did not pursue.
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60.
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA,
Congress made clear its intent to
preserve the practical benefits of using
judgments proposed by the United
States in antitrust enforcement, Public
Law 108–237 § 221, and added the
unambiguous instruction that ‘‘[n]othing
in this section shall be construed to
require the court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing or to require the
court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15
U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also U.S. Airways,
38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a
court is not required to hold an
evidentiary hearing or to permit
intervenors as part of its review under
the Tunney Act). This language
explicitly wrote into the statute what
Congress intended when it first enacted
the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator
Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is
nowhere compelled to go to trial or to
engage in extended proceedings which
might have the effect of vitiating the
benefits of prompt and less costly
settlement through the consent decree
process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973)
(statement of Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court
can make its public interest
determination based on the competitive
impact statement and response to public
comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F.
Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107
F. Supp. 2d at 17).
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by the
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: October 14, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff
United States of America:
/s/Bashiri Wilson
Bashiri Wilson (DC Bar #),
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division,
Defense, Industrials, and Aerospace
Section,
450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8700,
Washington, DC 20530,
Telephone: (202) 476–0432,
Facsimile: (202) 514–9033,
Email: Bashiri.wilson@usdoj.gov.
*Lead Attorney to be Noticed.
[FR Doc. 2021–23189 Filed 10–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Granting of Requests for Early
Termination of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger Notification
Rules
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, requires
persons contemplating certain mergers
or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade
Commission and the Assistant Attorney
General advance notice and to wait
designated periods before
consummation of such plans. Section
7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies,
in individual cases, to terminate this
waiting period prior to its expiration
and requires that notice of this action be
published in the Federal Register. The
following transactions were granted
early termination—on the date
indicated—of the waiting period
provided by law and the premerger
notification rules. The listing includes
the transaction number and the parties
to the transaction. The Federal Trade
Commission and the Assistant Attorney
General for the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice made the grants.
Neither agency intends to take any
action with respect to this proposed
acquisitions during the applicable
waiting period.
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Notices
58959
EARLY TERMINATION GRANTED
10/05/2021
20210814 ........
20210815 ........
G
G
Wienerberger AG; General Shale Brick, Inc.; Boral Limited; LSF9 Stardust Super Holdings, L.P.; Meridian Brick LLC.
Wienerberger AG; General Shale Brick, Inc.; Boral Limited; LSF9 Stardust Super Holdings, L.P.; Meridian Brick LLC.
10/08/2021
20212025 ........
G
Gray Television, Inc.; Meredith Corporation.
10/12/2024
20211339 ........
G
VEPF Torreys Aggregator, LLC; ClassPass Inc.
10/19/2021
20211210 ........
G
Neenah Enterprises, Inc.; Neenah Foundry Company; Alex Lane DeBogory; U.S. Holdings, Inc.; United States Foundry &
Manufacturing Corporation; Eagle Metal Processing and Recycling, Inc.
Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics,
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021–23131 Filed 10–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0243]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Extension
Without Change of a Currently
Approved Collection: Grants
Management System (JustGrants
System)
Office of Justice Programs,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Justice Programs, will be submitting
the following information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
November 24, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Jennifer Yeh, (202) 532–5929, Acting
Deputy Director, Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice,
810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC
20530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension without change of a currently
approved collection; non-substantive
name change.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
The existing title is the Community
Partnership Grants Management System.
Going forward, this collection will be
referred to as the JustGrants System
collection. The JustGrants System is the
successor system to the Community
Partnership Grants Management System,
and encompasses and replaces the
functionality of the latter.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NA. The applicable component within
the Department of Justice is Office of
Audit, Assessment, and Management, in
the Office of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: The primary respondents are
state, local, and tribal governments,
institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and other
organizations applying for DOJ grants.
JustGrants is a web-based grants
applications system and award
management system. It provides
automated support throughout the
award lifecycle, and facilitates reporting
to Congress and other interested
agencies. The system stores essential
information required to comply with the
Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA).
JustGrants has also been designated the
OJP official system of record for grants
activities by the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA).
(5) An Estimate of the Total Number
of Respondents and the Amount of Time
Estimated for an Average Respondent to
Respond: An estimated 57,945
organizations will respond to the
collections under JustGrants and on
average it will take each of them from
.17 to 9 hours to complete various
award lifecycle processes within the
system, varying from application
submission, award management and
reporting, and award closeout (a total
average of 29.17 hours for all processes).
(6) An Estimate of the Total Public
Burden (in hours) Associated with the
collection: The estimated public burden
associated with this application is
160,528 hours.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58958-58959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23131]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger Notification Rules
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II
of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires
persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the
Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance
notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such
plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual
cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and
requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal
Register. The following transactions were granted early termination--on
the date indicated--of the waiting period provided by law and the
premerger notification rules. The listing includes the transaction
number and the parties to the transaction. The Federal Trade Commission
and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice made the grants. Neither agency intends to take
any action with respect to this proposed acquisitions during the
applicable waiting period.
[[Page 58959]]
Early Termination Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/05/2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20210814................... G Wienerberger AG; General
Shale Brick, Inc.; Boral
Limited; LSF9 Stardust
Super Holdings, L.P.;
Meridian Brick LLC.
20210815................... G Wienerberger AG; General
Shale Brick, Inc.; Boral
Limited; LSF9 Stardust
Super Holdings, L.P.;
Meridian Brick LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20212025................... G Gray Television, Inc.;
Meredith Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/12/2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20211339................... G VEPF Torreys Aggregator,
LLC; ClassPass Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/19/2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20211210................... G Neenah Enterprises, Inc.;
Neenah Foundry Company;
Alex Lane DeBogory; U.S.
Holdings, Inc.; United
States Foundry &
Manufacturing Corporation;
Eagle Metal Processing and
Recycling, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021-23131 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
